From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99219138825 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 20:56:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 308D5E0961; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 20:56:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48C00E08E9 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 20:56:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.10] (unknown [46.22.169.194]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jauhien) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D288D340450 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 20:55:59 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <545D31D3.9060106@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 21:55:47 +0100 From: Jauhien Piatlicki User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage dependency solving algorithm References: <970447233.123246.1415278148751.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10951.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> <545B76DA.30000@gentoo.org> <20141106134301.3bd86ad9@googlemail.com> <545C940F.1030206@gentoo.org> <20141107180723.2acdb8e7@googlemail.com> <545D0B38.4070105@gentoo.org> <20141107183011.20f12812@googlemail.com> <545D189C.3080807@gentoo.org> <545D23DE.5010003@gentoo.org> <545D2F13.3060501@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <545D2F13.3060501@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="aM8fRF0bJLGL2U50UcwUXkRgU5VQ3As4I" X-Archives-Salt: 7275db13-90ea-4eab-b92e-93005b36dede X-Archives-Hash: 2e3348666e26339ff3a73722c5618ca1 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --aM8fRF0bJLGL2U50UcwUXkRgU5VQ3As4I Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 07.11.14 21:44, hasufell =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=B2(=D0=BB= =D0=B0): > On 11/07/2014 08:56 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote: >=20 > Every time people compare portage to paludis I read stuff like "but > paludis is slower". That is incomplete information to put it diplomatic= =2E >=20 > Do you really care so much about speed that you don't mind wrong result= s? >=20 My original question was about Portage being too slow. And Paludis came o= ut just as an alternative. And I would like to see a detailed discussion about what's wrong from the= point of view of correctness with: 1. PMS 2. ebuilds in tree 3. Portage dependency solving Was this discussed somewhere? Could you point me there? -- Jauhien --aM8fRF0bJLGL2U50UcwUXkRgU5VQ3As4I Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUXTHaAAoJELvuk32y76HUCwYP/jo2ET5iWfwCnEufFhCrvmeD OhEqTvisralDtK0hQD6OOLKnn+HDsWqR41qNwzNc5qJxjRnfVkQDKgUDTx6bopPX w8+934aS754JA4OmG+zGcz9JGH2jmB/vdGc0/KCCWBLteGVE4VUY+HZjRnXoOTO0 VucyZbfzQL36HTOJu4gFZJXuuVWjcaW0STvf3lLuCrfAzlZ7HvX1dbiZ72cQ/TVi 3yVlJj1c39klGxiXjeFlvEAw21psEfLAzqzkaXQLtUmg++Zw8sKQu8X97qOlIre9 04x6yFklya1GrXn8970/V6cp5nzDo9bVTYs4aJXHRCMcgflwE+lGA7SMO1FpoL7B +3h9NoDBVRXbW4u8l1/+Nr5YBWvjz2VHSFr8C3BWqMzbTVaM6TZONfHPWo/DmBkB UpWdOfsQO+WBK3kJ9fm7MIbSNHfSaKzgWlwgquEBr92CS7I3XxGs+U8STEGFmz5s a41+64sBOTbag0Ak2DIy35ITNM6b2koj+p4OHWgjCE6ASx50QnKFgFyWyXOUWD4P vlSAKXmkip/5rPW2sR0Ax82wD8+v4JgFPx9NZp0AP25CTHGY6xxEq//JxLmEarcI 8mNK786UbDbfFrdi9zGKffaZARKxhgzWhJQsEW0AKWzpUy22f7bkP34yK0uMZIBE Ishm0jeGXCINwlqqTY1q =hUH5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --aM8fRF0bJLGL2U50UcwUXkRgU5VQ3As4I--